Another family from rural Georgia is coming to reality television, with “Hollywood Hillbillies” set to debut in January on ReelzChannel.

The show follows Michael Kittrell and his grandmother Delores Hughes, known as “Mema,” as the family moves from Grayson, Ga., to Hollywood. Along for the ride are Kittrell’s aunt, Dee Dee Peters, her boyfriend Paul Conlon, and Kittrell’s uncle John Cox.

Kittrell is known as “The Angry Ginger” on YouTube, where a video he made to protest a “South Park” episode that claimed redheads have no soul gained attention.

“I made a lot of money on my YouTube channel, and I saved it all from the past four years,” Kittrell said. “I got my family with me to support me and help me while we all look for our place out here.”

Alana “Honey Boo Boo” Thompson, her mother and their rural Georgia family are the subjects of a hit TLC show that focuses on their lives in a small town.

For the record, Grayson is not “rural Georgia.” In fact, it sits right in one of the largest suburban counties near Atlanta. But I digress.

The inevitable similarities between both shows following a Southern family are going to be there, but will the public respond well to the new show?

“Honey Boo Boo” already has captivated the public on television and her show is broadcasted on the TLC channel that has an established audience. On the contrary, the show starring “Angry Ginger” will be aired on Reelz, which doesn’t have the same reach. It will be interesting to see if his subscribers from his YouTube channel migrated to watch his antics on television now.

I escaped Detroit back in 1982, moved to Texas. I can tell you that people in Texas are far nicer, have better ethics, are far more self reliant (well, aside from the welfare dregs in the blue zones), are far less antagonistic and confrontational.

Sure, you can find a hick down here that illustrates the stereotype. If you did that in Detroit, you'd be called a raaaaaaacist.

Well, there's no shortage of obese, slack-jawed yahoos on both coasts; The South has nothing like a monopoly on them. There are plenty of obese, slack-jawed yahoos with Nooo Yawk accents and who sing their sentences in the California style of scaling up to a higher pitch as the end of the sentence nears, yah know. It's just that it is always open season on Southerners and has been since at least the 1830s or so; read Frederick Law Olmstead's arrogant, condescending account of his travels through The South in, IIRC the 1850s. People underestimate the contribution that the fact that Southerners of all classes had come to despise arrogant, meddling Yankees made to the inevitability of the Civil War. Many didn't want to find a reason to make peace.

The Left needs its dependent classes - whether racial or economic - in order to sustain its industry of centrally planned solutions. Imagine - if racism is ever seen as irrelevant, then so is an entire industry based on supposed never-ending societal and workplace discrimination. It seems to me the same with hick reality TV -- putting seemingly stupid stereotypes out there helps reinforce the idea that there is a class of people that need to be looked after by the more intellectually enlightened (i.e., the compassionate Left) - and protected from themselves. The soft bigotry of low expectations is never ending on the Left.

Smarmy liberals think they are so much more educated and sophisticated than those in the South, but I'll take a Southerner over any of them any day of the week.

Probably one reason they are trying to make all these shows is because of shows like Swamp People, Mountain men and Duck Dynasty. These shows are hugely successful and one reason is that these people know how to take care of themselves. Urbanites and suburbanites are helpless.

I was just discussing this very topic with a friend yesterday evening.

This is ultimately just proggy leftists' way of sniggering behind their hands as they boldly show their utter contempt for flyover America. If they truly understood the utter loathing I have grown to have for them to the very depths of my being, a sentiment I'm sure is shared not just across the south but across these Disunited States, they would be cowering in a corner wetting themselves.

I escaped Detroit back in 1982, moved to Texas. I can tell you that people in Texas are far nicer, have better ethics, are far more self reliant (well, aside from the welfare dregs in the blue zones), are far less antagonistic and confrontational.

Sure, you can find a hick down here that illustrates the stereotype. If you did that in Detroit, you'd be called a raaaaaaacist.

Well, there's no shortage of obese, slack-jawed yahoos on both coasts; The South has nothing like a monopoly on them. There are plenty of obese, slack-jawed yahoos with Nooo Yawk accents and who sing their sentences in the California style of scaling up to a higher pitch as the end of the sentence nears, yah know. It's just that it is always open season on Southerners and has been since at least the 1830s or so; read Frederick Law Olmstead's arrogant, condescending account of his travels through The South in, IIRC the 1850s. People underestimate the contribution that the fact that Southerners of all classes had come to despise arrogant, meddling Yankees made to the inevitability of the Civil War. Many didn't want to find a reason to make peace.

Most in the North were fine with the South seceeding (i.e. don't let the door hit you on the way out). It was Lincoln that didn't want to lose the republic and he pushed for a confrontation.

Even though Fort Sumpter changed hands rather peacefully, Lincoln had the newspapers stir up public ire at the first blood being drawn (even though it was an accident caused they their own northern men).

I don't think Lincoln was concerned about losing the Republic - he pretty much destroyed that Republic in 1861.

(Reason being he completely changed the balance of power the Founding Fathers set up when they created the Republic when he went to war with sovereign states that were exercising their legitimate state's right to secede.

Even the New England states had made initiatives prior to 1861 to secede and no one argued that they did not have that right, instead turning to other means to dissuade them from that course of action.)

What Lincoln was afraid of losing was tax revenue.

Any research on where the vast majority of federal tax revenue was raised vs where the vast majority of federal tax revenue was spent prior to 1861 will illustrate that fact pretty quickly.

He needed the money.

Lincoln was further emboldened to consider war as a viable alternative because he was convinced the South could be defeated in months or even weeks.

Why negotiate a peaceful settlement, based on compromise, of legitimate differences between the two regions that allowed for a continuation of a unified country when he felt he could get everything he wanted more quickly by brute force without having to compromise at all?

I'm not so sure about the brute force thing (I really don't think he was such an evil man) but you are correct that the south generated revenue and the north spent it. I think Lincoln realized the only way he could get the south back was to fight them for it because he knew he was never going to be able to convince them to return no matter what he offered (and he did offer to end the tarifs and taxes - but no deal).

But he was also a jerk - he arrested half of Maryland with no hope of ever seeing a court room.

Why do you think the South had a legitimate right to secede?Seccession would lead to anarchy, as the South found during the war when Georgia pulled its troops out of the CSA to protect itself. And when West Virginia seceded from Virginia to form its own state.The South seceded before President Lincoln took office; very hard to state that it was his actions that caused the South to leave.The South did not want peace, because after 40 years of compromise they saw the future was going against them.

Regarding whether or not the states had the right to secede in 1861, have you actually read Thomas Jefferson's writings? Have you studied the history of secession movements in the US? Particularly that history prior to 1861?

That along should suffice to answer the question.

Regarding anarchy, I doubt that would have occurred as the states were all well organized in 1861. It was more the central government that was not well organized. However, in a peacetime atmosphere such things could have been ironed out, while a wartime footing caused all grades of confusion and chaos.

A peaceful withdrawel from the union would have been far more organized had it continued unopposed.

As for Lincoln being the cause of secession, he was already noted regarding his domestic policies regarding taxation and spending. The South realized that the issues they had tolerated were only going to get much worse, and soon.

The South also tried to negotiate a peaceful withdrawel when the Union objected. They sought to pay for all federal properties, for instance, that remained in the South even though many had already been abandoned by departing federal troops.

Georgia never pulled its troops out of the Provisional Army of the Confederate States. Sometimes Gov. Brown seemed more at war with President Davis than with President Lincoln, but Georgia raised 65 regiments for the PACS and other than those surrendered whole at Vicksburg, and not even all of them, those 65 regiments were there until the end. Now, desertions to take care of their families, especially by troops whose families were in Sherman's path, some of my ancestors among them, are another matter. The ANV was at less than a third of its muster strength when the Yankees carried the Richmond-Petersburg works and forced Lee to abandon his lines.

Union armies had a lot to do with WV's separation from VA. And in that case the US did implicitly recognize VA's secession because if VA had been a part of the Union, WV's separation without VA's consent would have been unconstitutional.

Because - it was already turning into a suicide pact with the North. The North had all the industrial power and the South the agricultural. They North was positioning the South into perpertual servitude with tariffs and taxes.

I don't know that anarchy would have insued had the South won the civil war - certainly we wouldn't have been the united force during the world wars. That being said, the South WAS right to secede - just at the wrong time. They probably should have seceeded at least 20 years prior.

That being said, now is as good as any time for secession. Either that or states should rid themselves of their mega-cities. Wall off such places like New York and Denver and let the rest of the state survive. Otherwise have a transfer of populations.